WASHINGTON — Racial attitudes have not improved in the four years since the nation elected its first black president, an Associated Press poll finds, as a slight majority of Americans now express prejudice toward black people whether they recognize those feelings or not.
Those views could cost President Obama votes as he tries for reelection, the survey found, though the effects are mitigated by some people’s more favorable views of black people.
Comments
Readers of the Washington Post, in its former days of relevance, may remember Jennifer Agiesta aa the newspaper's polling analyst. In that role, she tended to keep the newspaper honest, indicating when poll results had statistical significance and when they had external validation. --
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ms. Agiesta does not seem to be doing the same kind of work for Associated Press. If she did, the story displayed by the Globe would note that the so-called "change" reported in "racist attitudes toward black people," from 48 to 51 percent over 4 years, falls well short of statistical significance and would not be published in reputable scientific journals unless reported as "no significant change."
48 percent is still a huge number of people. Very sad. It would explain the amount of unreasonable treatment and rude insult this president has had to endure.
This comment has been removed.
How interesting that the AP releases this "poll" a week before the presidential election. Is the AP trying to guilt trip white voters into voting for Obama a second time despite buyer's remorse? BTW, I have no doubt that some white people are racist. But the timing of this story is suspicious.
This comment has been removed.
{Sigh} Yes, I guess you'll have to add the Associated Press to your lengthening list of entities that you cannot trust (unless you already have the AP on that list). "Paranoia strikes deep; into your life it will creep".
Without telling us the questions asked (leading questions?) or methodology used to interpret the answers (subjective interpretations?, it is impossible to know the accuracy of the conclusion that 51% have racist attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I'm inclined not to believe this conclusion based on (A) my experience (I don't know any racist whites), (B) the fact that an overwhelming majority of media personnel are self-described liberals and Democrats, (C) the fact that liberals are inclined to characterize any disagreement with Obama as "racist," and (D) the fact that whenever Gen. Colin Powell's name was included in presidential polls in years past, he always won.
This comment has been removed.
@ lesvalseuses, I was a Boston public school teacher for 14 years, and routiniuely heard black kids as young as 8 throw around accusations of racism, especially when they were in trouble for some bad behavior. Charges of racism are loosely thrown around. One black parent even accused a black teacher of being "racist" against blacks !! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I truly believe that (in Boston) perhaps 70% of incidents that are *perceived* as racist by blacks are actually the results of their own self-defeating behaviors (ie: one's criminal record, one didn't get the job because one dresses and acts like a hip-hopper, or police crack down on a high crime neighborhood). Another 25% of *perceived* racist incidents are really just the same problems everyone else faces (hard to find a job, hard to pay the bills). Perhaps 5-10% of perceived racial incidents are the result of any real racial prejudice. BTW, my black friends agree with me, but then my own black friends tend to be educated, non-criminal, and don't use "racism" as an excuse.
This comment has been removed.
Why has Obama tread cautiously on the subject of race?
I believe this article has one major shortcoming. It keeps referring to a majority of Americans as being biased. However, it's ambiguous if "Americans" in each case a statistic is cited only refers to non-Hispanic whites or not. (Only in <u>one</u> case is the point made clear in the article.) Should the reader assume that "Americans" only refers to non-Hispanic whites throughout the article? If so, does that usage imply bias on the part of the writers? (Many Americans <em>are</em> black or Hispanic after all.)
"Presume" whatever you want, but I "presume" that when they refer to "Americans", they do mean a breadth of Americans of a variety of backgrounds. And see what happens when you get news you don't like to hear? You (and many, many others) immediately start to question the validity of the poll itself or the reporters who write about it. Let's say this exact same poll came out today and said, "Hey, surprising good news! Attitudes on race have improved across the board in the past four years -- a reason to celebrate!" I'll bet some people would take that version and still question it, as some kind of support for Obama, along with "suspicious timing". In this poisonous election season, everything is suspicious to somebody.
Mine was a genuine question, not a subtle partisan jab. Please re-read paragraph six (which deals with bias against Hispanics) to see why I said it is unclear exactly who "Americans" are in the context of this article.
Welcome to post-racial America, as exemplified by the boston.com comment boards. Four years after electing the first black president, and we still can't seem to get past the racial aspects of the event. Very disheartening. (I wrote those words on Friday, in response to the Sununu statements disparaging the Colin Powell support for Obama.)